Confed999

I did some reading, this is an incorrect statement.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Officer of Engineers

And He is 100% morally wrong (I loved this, especially when he played the moral card). However, my point was that US Grant didn't see an enemy after he won the war. Leader still does.

I would ask you your PoV, did US Grant start the healing process?

You're going to have to explain that one to me, especially after the fact that we were the 4th largest force contributor to the Iraq War (albeit under the table).

__________________
Chimo

Confed999

From my prejudiced point of view, instituted by family lines that fought for the South, I think there were a few that seemed to care. Grant and Lincoln were the big ones. Still, the healing itself took many years, even now there is resentment, but Grant showed great honor towards the southerners and I believe that if it weren't for his leadership the South would have been further pillaged. If he didn't start the healing, he surly did wonders to stop the hurt.
It's the under the table part, the lack of open support hurt the effort. Sorry, it's just how I feel. It's that damned if you do, damned if you don't thing, sux.

Officer of Engineers

Again, you fail to see the point. The point about the War on Terror is that WE REFUSE TO BE TERRORIST! YES, I WOULD TREAT THE WAR ON TERROR EXACTLY THE WAY I WOULD TREAT A WAR BETWEEN BROTHERS! Obeying the UCMJ/QR&O and the ROEs maintains my effectiveness while punishing the guilty.

I have absolutely no problen with my snipers taking a groin shot on a terrorist who was too slow to raise his hands (or at least not fast enough for my sniper to see) (hint, M21).

However, I WILL NOT TOLERATE THE ABUSE INFLICTED BY PFC ENGLAND ON THOSE HOODED MEN. You're still too stupid to see the damage, don't you. They're hooded men. You don't know if they're terrorists or jay walkers and PFC England violated them while wearing an AMERICAN UNIFORM and AN AMERICAN FLAG! For ALL we know, she humilated innocent men in violation of the GC and the UCMJ. You know what? SHE DID!!!!!! WHILE WEARING YOUR FLAG AND THE FLAG THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER BY YOUR GOVERNMENT!

It isn't all her fault but your country has been shamed and I am truly sorry that you do not see this.

After this predicted fiasco (INCLUDING ME TO YOU) by some very senior military personal, not by the least of which, Chief of Army Staff, General Shinseki - NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!

Going to war is not wrong. There were strong strategic reasons in doing so but the execution and the aftermath? It's all damned wrong.

You don't realized this, do you. PFC England just turne the US from Liberators to Occupiers.

Officer of Engineers

Confed,

And you told me that I could do without your particpation. Not a chance in hell, I appreciate your postings as informative and very insightful. You've just forced me to re-evaluate one of my icons, US Grant.

Blademaster

Sir,

I thought you supported the Iraqi War despite Bush's leadership. It was because of the WMD issue and despite the lack of WMD evidence, we could not afford to let Saddam another crack at using WMD against the western world or Israel.

I still support this war however Dick Cheney and Rumsfield needs to go. But i don't think they will go so I guess it's time for Bush to go. But then comes the TINA factor (There Is No Alternative).

I am not sure about John Kerry's credentials. He is still unknown to me.

Officer of Engineers

That was exactly my point. I WAS WRONG! There was no way in hell Saddam could put together even a half way competent 11 Sept style strike. However, I played it safe than sorry and based upon an eval of the evidence at hand, I still would not have changed my mind. It is AFTER THE FACT that I am currently speaking about. I don't know how I would have changed my mind based upon the evidence I had available but I know that I was wrong.

Right now, Iraq is keystone cops. I am extremely frustrated in seeing what needs to be done but not being done, the very least of which is getting Iraqis to punish Iraqis. I don't mean plausible deniablity. Stick a couple of MPs in there to make sure no one dies or serious hurt but otherwise turn a blind eye. It's THEIR JUSTICE SYSTEM. One of the more effective enforcement things we did in UNPROFOR. We sent Croat criminals over to Serb police and vice-versa.

Confed999

I appreciate that, but I'm no expert on the Civil War. I'm not sure my statement is worth re-evaluating an icon, it's just the impression I got. I remember reading many statements by prominent Confederates praising Grant, after the war, you probably allready know that though.

Officer of Engineers

Grant to me was the most immaculate warrior that I've studied. Determined to win the war at all costs but also determined to win the peace at all costs. He and Sherman were the 1st Industrial Generals (ie, they went after the Confederate resources instead of after their armies) and Sherman fought the 1st logistical war (Confederates had a line, "No use burning bridges, he bought his own.")

I still believe that he was determined to win the peace at all costs but just how effective is what I need to re-evaluate. Is it a pipe dream that warriors can be just as effective at winning the peace?

Blademaster

Keep that in mind, the stuff they did like Sherma's march to the sea would not be tolerated today.

As for industrial warfare, they also conducted a pyschiological warfare. They demoralized the South so completely that they would not dare to fight against the North. If they did, they would be swiftly punished with methods that would not be allowed today.

In short, the enemy decided to gived up fighting. Also no one else dared to interfere with the affairs of the Union and the Reconstruction effort.

Vietnam was different because the enemy refused to surrender and US did not want to use the methods employed in the Indian wars.

The Iraqi War, well, it is all a political show now. The enemy does not know the concept of surrender. Ah I do not know.

Leader

So, yes? And cut the personal attacks. They show a lack of moral fiber.

So we understand each other. There is clearly nothing I can state to change your opinion in any way. Therefore, I will not bother. Thank you for saving me the time. Further conversation of this matter is clearly a waste of time.

__________________

Confed999

No, winning the peace is about earning respect, anyone worthy of that respect can win the peace, even a warrior. Unfortunately the warrior usually has a strike against him, he was just fighting the ones he's trying to make peace with. I think it would work better in combination, a charismatic politician backed by an honorable warrior.